|
Book 8
1
After what we have said, a discussion of friendship would naturally
follow, since it is a virtue or implies virtue, and is besides most
necessary with a view to living. For without friends no one would choose
to live, though he had all other goods; even rich men and those in
possession of office and of dominating power are thought to need friends
most of all; for what is the use of such prosperity without the
opportunity of beneficence, which is exercised chiefly and in its most
laudable form towards friends? Or how can prosperity be guarded and
preserved without friends? The greater it is, the more exposed is it to
risk. And in poverty and in other misfortunes men think friends are the
only refuge. It helps the young, too, to keep from error; it aids older
people by ministering to their needs and supplementing the activities
that are failing from weakness; those in the prime of life it stimulates
to noble actions-'two going together'-for with friends men are more able
both to think and to act. Again, parent seems by nature to feel it for
offspring and offspring for parent, not only among men but among birds
and among most animals; it is felt mutually by members of the same race,
and especially by men, whence we praise lovers of their fellowmen. We
may even in our travels how near and dear every man is to every other.
Friendship seems too to hold states together, and lawgivers to care more
for it than for justice; for unanimity seems to be something like
friendship, and this they aim at most of all, and expel faction as their
worst enemy; and when men are friends they have no need of justice,
while when they are just they need friendship as well, and the truest
form of justice is thought to be a friendly quality.
But it is not only necessary but also noble; for we praise those who
love their friends, and it is thought to be a fine thing to have many
friends; and again we think it is the same people that are good men and
are friends.
Not a few things about friendship are matters of debate. Some define it
as a kind of likeness and say like people are friends, whence come the
sayings 'like to like', 'birds of a feather flock together', and so on;
others on the contrary say 'two of a trade never agree'. On this very
question they inquire for deeper and more physical causes, Euripides
saying that 'parched earth loves the rain, and stately heaven when
filled with rain loves to fall to earth', and Heraclitus that 'it is
what opposes that helps' and 'from different tones comes the fairest
tune' and 'all things are produced through strife'; while Empedocles, as
well as others, expresses the opposite view that like aims at like. The
physical problems we may leave alone (for they do not belong to the
present inquiry); let us examine those which are human and involve
character and feeling, e.g. whether friendship can arise between any two
people or people cannot be friends if they are wicked, and whether there
is one species of friendship or more than one. Those who think there is
only one because it admits of degrees have relied on an inadequate
indication; for even things different in species admit of degree. We
have discussed this matter previously.
2
The kinds of friendship may perhaps be cleared up if we first come to
know the object of love. For not everything seems to be loved but only
the lovable, and this is good, pleasant, or useful; but it would seem to
be that by which some good or pleasure is produced that is useful, so
that it is the good and the useful that are lovable as ends. Do men
love, then, the good, or what is good for them? These sometimes clash.
So too with regard to the pleasant. Now it is thought that each loves
what is good for himself, and that the good is without qualification
lovable, and what is good for each man is lovable for him; but each man
loves not what is good for him but what seems good. This however will
make no difference; we shall just have to say that this is 'that which
seems lovable'. Now there are three grounds on which people love; of the
love of lifeless objects we do not use the word 'friendship'; for it is
not mutual love, nor is there a wishing of good to the other (for it
would surely be ridiculous to wish wine well; if one wishes anything for
it, it is that it may keep, so that one may have it oneself); but to a
friend we say we ought to wish what is good for his sake. But to those
who thus wish good we ascribe only goodwill, if the wish is not
reciprocated; goodwill when it is reciprocal being friendship. Or must
we add 'when it is recognized'? For many people have goodwill to those
whom they have not seen but judge to be good or useful; and one of these
might return this feeling. These people seem to bear goodwill to each
other; but how could one call them friends when they do not know their
mutual feelings? To be friends, then, the must be mutually recognized as
bearing goodwill and wishing well to each other for one of the aforesaid
reasons.
3
Now these reasons differ from each other in kind; so, therefore, do the
corresponding forms of love and friendship. There are therefore three
kinds of friendship, equal in number to the things that are lovable; for
with respect to each there is a mutual and recognized love, and those
who love each other wish well to each other in that respect in which
they love one another. Now those who love each other for their utility
do not love each other for themselves but in virtue of some good which
they get from each other. So too with those who love for the sake of
pleasure; it is not for their character that men love ready-witted
people, but because they find them pleasant. Therefore those who love
for the sake of utility love for the sake of what is good for
themselves, and those who love for the sake of pleasure do so for the
sake of what is pleasant to themselves, and not in so far as the other
is the person loved but in so far as he is useful or pleasant. And thus
these friendships are only incidental; for it is not as being the man he
is that the loved person is loved, but as providing some good or
pleasure. Such friendships, then, are easily dissolved, if the parties
do not remain like themselves; for if the one party is no longer
pleasant or useful the other ceases to love him.
Now the useful is not permanent but is always changing. Thus when the
motive of the friendship is done away, the friendship is dissolved,
inasmuch as it existed only for the ends in question. This kind of
friendship seems to exist chiefly between old people (for at that age
people pursue not the pleasant but the useful) and, of those who are in
their prime or young, between those who pursue utility. And such people
do not live much with each other either; for sometimes they do not even
find each other pleasant; therefore they do not need such companionship
unless they are useful to each other; for they are pleasant to each
other only in so far as they rouse in each other hopes of something good
to come. Among such friendships people also class the friendship of a
host and guest. On the other hand the friendship of young people seems
to aim at pleasure; for they live under the guidance of emotion, and
pursue above all what is pleasant to themselves and what is immediately
before them; but with increasing age their pleasures become different.
This is why they quickly become friends and quickly cease to be so;
their friendship changes with the object that is found pleasant, and
such pleasure alters quickly. Young people are amorous too; for the
greater part of the friendship of love depends on emotion and aims at
pleasure; this is why they fall in love and quickly fall out of love,
changing often within a single day. But these people do wish to spend
their days and lives together; for it is thus that they attain the
purpose of their friendship.
Perfect friendship is the friendship of men who are good, and alike in
virtue; for these wish well alike to each other qua good, and they are
good themselves. Now those who wish well to their friends for their sake
are most truly friends; for they do this by reason of own nature and not
incidentally; therefore their friendship lasts as long as they are
good-and goodness is an enduring thing. And each is good without
qualification and to his friend, for the good are both good without
qualification and useful to each other. So too they are pleasant; for
the good are pleasant both without qualification and to each other,
since to each his own activities and others like them are pleasurable,
and the actions of the good are the same or like. And such a friendship
is as might be expected permanent, since there meet in it all the
qualities that friends should have. For all friendship is for the sake
of good or of pleasure-good or pleasure either in the abstract or such
as will be enjoyed by him who has the friendly feeling-and is based on a
certain resemblance; and to a friendship of good men all the qualities
we have named belong in virtue of the nature of the friends themselves;
for in the case of this kind of friendship the other qualities also are
alike in both friends, and that which is good without qualification is
also without qualification pleasant, and these are the most lovable
qualities. Love and friendship therefore are found most and in their
best form between such men.
But it is natural that such friendships should be infrequent; for such
men are rare. Further, such friendship requires time and familiarity; as
the proverb says, men cannot know each other till they have 'eaten salt
together'; nor can they admit each other to friendship or be friends
till each has been found lovable and been trusted by each. Those who
quickly show the marks of friendship to each other wish to be friends,
but are not friends unless they both are lovable and know the fact; for
a wish for friendship may arise quickly, but friendship does not.
4
This kind of friendship, then, is perfect both in respect of duration
and in all other respects, and in it each gets from each in all respects
the same as, or something like what, he gives; which is what ought to
happen between friends. Friendship for the sake of pleasure bears a
resemblance to this kind; for good people too are pleasant to each
other. So too does friendship for the sake of utility; for the good are
also useful to each other. Among men of these inferior sorts too,
friendships are most permanent when the friends get the same thing from
each other (e.g. pleasure), and not only that but also from the same
source, as happens between ready-witted people, not as happens between
lover and beloved. For these do not take pleasure in the same things,
but the one in seeing the beloved and the other in receiving attentions
from his lover; and when the bloom of youth is passing the friendship
sometimes passes too (for the one finds no pleasure in the sight of the
other, and the other gets no attentions from the first); but many lovers
on the other hand are constant, if familiarity has led them to love each
other's characters, these being alike. But those who exchange not
pleasure but utility in their amour are both less truly friends and less
constant. Those who are friends for the sake of utility part when the
advantage is at an end; for they were lovers not of each other but of
profit.
For the sake of pleasure or utility, then, even bad men may be friends
of each other, or good men of bad, or one who is neither good nor bad
may be a friend to any sort of person, but for their own sake clearly
only good men can be friends; for bad men do not delight in each other
unless some advantage come of the relation.
The friendship of the good too and this alone is proof against slander;
for it is not easy to trust any one talk about a man who has long been
tested by oneself; and it is among good men that trust and the feeling
that 'he would never wrong me' and all the other things that are
demanded in true friendship are found. In the other kinds of friendship,
however, there is nothing to prevent these evils arising. For men apply
the name of friends even to those whose motive is utility, in which
sense states are said to be friendly (for the alliances of states seem
to aim at advantage), and to those who love each other for the sake of
pleasure, in which sense children are called friends. Therefore we too
ought perhaps to call such people friends, and say that there are
several kinds of friendship-firstly and in the proper sense that of good
men qua good, and by analogy the other kinds; for it is in virtue of
something good and something akin to what is found in true friendship
that they are friends, since even the pleasant is good for the lovers of
pleasure. But these two kinds of friendship are not often united, nor do
the same people become friends for the sake of utility and of pleasure;
for things that are only incidentally connected are not often coupled
together.
Friendship being divided into these kinds, bad men will be friends for
the sake of pleasure or of utility, being in this respect like each
other, but good men will be friends for their own sake, i.e. in virtue
of their goodness. These, then, are friends without qualification; the
others are friends incidentally and through a resemblance to these.
5
As in regard to the virtues some men are called good in respect of a
state of character, others in respect of an activity, so too in the case
of friendship; for those who live together delight in each other and
confer benefits on each other, but those who are asleep or locally
separated are not performing, but are disposed to perform, the
activities of friendship; distance does not break off the friendship
absolutely, but only the activity of it. But if the absence is lasting,
it seems actually to make men forget their friendship; hence the saying
'out of sight, out of mind'. Neither old people nor sour people seem to
make friends easily; for there is little that is pleasant in them, and
no one can spend his days with one whose company is painful, or not
pleasant, since nature seems above all to avoid the painful and to aim
at the pleasant. Those, however, who approve of each other but do not
live together seem to be well-disposed rather than actual friends. For
there is nothing so characteristic of friends as living together (since
while it people who are in need that desire benefits, even those who are
supremely happy desire to spend their days together; for solitude suits
such people least of all); but people cannot live together if they are
not pleasant and do not enjoy the same things, as friends who are
companions seem to do.
The truest friendship, then, is that of the good, as we have frequently
said; for that which is without qualification good or pleasant seems to
be lovable and desirable, and for each person that which is good or
pleasant to him; and the good man is lovable and desirable to the good
man for both these reasons. Now it looks as if love were a feeling,
friendship a state of character; for love may be felt just as much
towards lifeless things, but mutual love involves choice and choice
springs from a state of character; and men wish well to those whom they
love, for their sake, not as a result of feeling but as a result of a
state of character. And in loving a friend men love what is good for
themselves; for the good man in becoming a friend becomes a good to his
friend. Each, then, both loves what is good for himself, and makes an
equal return in goodwill and in pleasantness; for friendship is said to
be equality, and both of these are found most in the friendship of the
good.
6
Between sour and elderly people friendship arises less readily, inasmuch
as they are less good-tempered and enjoy companionship less; for these
are thou to be the greatest marks of friendship productive of it. This
is why, while men become friends quickly, old men do not; it is because
men do not become friends with those in whom they do not delight; and
similarly sour people do not quickly make friends either. But such men
may bear goodwill to each other; for they wish one another well and aid
one another in need; but they are hardly friends because they do not
spend their days together nor delight in each other, and these are
thought the greatest marks of friendship.
One cannot be a friend to many people in the sense of having friendship
of the perfect type with them, just as one cannot be in love with many
people at once (for love is a sort of excess of feeling, and it is the
nature of such only to be felt towards one person); and it is not easy
for many people at the same time to please the same person very greatly,
or perhaps even to be good in his eyes. One must, too, acquire some
experience of the other person and become familiar with him, and that is
very hard. But with a view to utility or pleasure it is possible that
many people should please one; for many people are useful or pleasant,
and these services take little time.
Of these two kinds that which is for the sake of pleasure is the more
like friendship, when both parties get the same things from each other
and delight in each other or in the things, as in the friendships of the
young; for generosity is more found in such friendships. Friendship
based on utility is for the commercially minded. People who are
supremely happy, too, have no need of useful friends, but do need
pleasant friends; for they wish to live with some one and, though they
can endure for a short time what is painful, no one could put up with it
continuously, nor even with the Good itself if it were painful to him;
this is why they look out for friends who are pleasant. Perhaps they
should look out for friends who, being pleasant, are also good, and good
for them too; for so they will have all the characteristics that friends
should have.
People in positions of authority seem to have friends who fall into
distinct classes; some people are useful to them and others are
pleasant, but the same people are rarely both; for they seek neither
those whose pleasantness is accompanied by virtue nor those whose
utility is with a view to noble objects, but in their desire for
pleasure they seek for ready-witted people, and their other friends they
choose as being clever at doing what they are told, and these
characteristics are rarely combined. Now we have said that the good man
is at the same time pleasant and useful; but such a man does not become
the friend of one who surpasses him in station, unless he is surpassed
also in virtue; if this is not so, he does not establish equality by
being proportionally exceeded in both respects. But people who surpass
him in both respects are not so easy to find.
However that may be, the aforesaid friendships involve equality; for the
friends get the same things from one another and wish the same things
for one another, or exchange one thing for another, e.g. pleasure for
utility; we have said, however, that they are both less truly
friendships and less permanent.
But it is from their likeness and their unlikeness to the same thing
that they are thought both to be and not to be friendships. It is by
their likeness to the friendship of virtue that they seem to be
friendships (for one of them involves pleasure and the other utility,
and these characteristics belong to the friendship of virtue as well);
while it is because the friendship of virtue is proof against slander
and permanent, while these quickly change (besides differing from the
former in many other respects), that they appear not to be friendships;
i.e. it is because of their unlikeness to the friendship of virtue.
7
But there is another kind of friendship, viz. that which involves an
inequality between the parties, e.g. that of father to son and in
general of elder to younger, that of man to wife and in general that of
ruler to subject. And these friendships differ also from each other; for
it is not the same that exists between parents and children and between
rulers and subjects, nor is even that of father to son the same as that
of son to father, nor that of husband to wife the same as that of wife
to husband. For the virtue and the function of each of these is
different, and so are the reasons for which they love; the love and the
friendship are therefore different also. Each party, then, neither gets
the same from the other, nor ought to seek it; but when children render
to parents what they ought to render to those who brought them into the
world, and parents render what they should to their children, the
friendship of such persons will be abiding and excellent. In all
friendships implying inequality the love also should be proportional,
i.e. the better should be more loved than he loves, and so should the
more useful, and similarly in each of the other cases; for when the love
is in proportion to the merit of the parties, then in a sense arises
equality, which is certainly held to be characteristic of friendship.
But equality does not seem to take the same form in acts of justice and
in friendship; for in acts of justice what is equal in the primary sense
is that which is in proportion to merit, while quantitative equality is
secondary, but in friendship quantitative equality is primary and
proportion to merit secondary. This becomes clear if there is a great
interval in respect of virtue or vice or wealth or anything else between
the parties; for then they are no longer friends, and do not even expect
to be so. And this is most manifest in the case of the gods; for they
surpass us most decisively in all good things. But it is clear also in
the case of kings; for with them, too, men who are much their inferiors
do not expect to be friends; nor do men of no account expect to be
friends with the best or wisest men. In such cases it is not possible to
define exactly up to what point friends can remain friends; for much can
be taken away and friendship remain, but when one party is removed to a
great distance, as God is, the possibility of friendship ceases. This is
in fact the origin of the question whether friends really wish for their
friends the greatest goods, e.g. that of being gods; since in that case
their friends will no longer be friends to them, and therefore will not
be good things for them (for friends are good things). The answer is
that if we were right in saying that friend wishes good to friend for
his sake, his friend must remain the sort of being he is, whatever that
may be; therefore it is for him oily so long as he remains a man that he
will wish the greatest goods. But perhaps not all the greatest goods;
for it is for himself most of all that each man wishes what is good.
8
Most people seem, owing to ambition, to wish to be loved rather than to
love; which is why most men love flattery; for the flatterer is a friend
in an inferior position, or pretends to be such and to love more than he
is loved; and being loved seems to be akin to being honoured, and this
is what most people aim at. But it seems to be not for its own sake that
people choose honour, but incidentally. For most people enjoy being
honoured by those in positions of authority because of their hopes (for
they think that if they want anything they will get it from them; and
therefore they delight in honour as a token of favour to come); while
those who desire honour from good men, and men who know, are aiming at
confirming their own opinion of themselves; they delight in honour,
therefore, because they believe in their own goodness on the strength of
the judgement of those who speak about them. In being loved, on the
other hand, people delight for its own sake; whence it would seem to be
better than being honoured, and friendship to be desirable in itself.
But it seems to lie in loving rather than in being loved, as is
indicated by the delight mothers take in loving; for some mothers hand
over their children to be brought up, and so long as they know their
fate they love them and do not seek to be loved in return (if they
cannot have both), but seem to be satisfied if they see them prospering;
and they themselves love their children even if these owing to their
ignorance give them nothing of a mother's due. Now since friendship
depends more on loving, and it is those who love their friends that are
praised, loving seems to be the characteristic virtue of friends, so
that it is only those in whom this is found in due measure that are
lasting friends, and only their friendship that endures.
It is in this way more than any other that even unequals can be friends;
they can be equalized. Now equality and likeness are friendship, and
especially the likeness of those who are like in virtue; for being
steadfast in themselves they hold fast to each other, and neither ask
nor give base services, but (one may say) even prevent them; for it is
characteristic of good men neither to go wrong themselves nor to let
their friends do so. But wicked men have no steadfastness (for they do
not remain even like to themselves), but become friends for a short time
because they delight in each other's wickedness. Friends who are useful
or pleasant last longer; i.e. as long as they provide each other with
enjoyments or advantages. Friendship for utility's sake seems to be that
which most easily exists between contraries, e.g. between poor and rich,
between ignorant and learned; for what a man actually lacks he aims at,
and one gives something else in return. But under this head, too, might
bring lover and beloved, beautiful and ugly. This is why lovers
sometimes seem ridiculous, when they demand to be loved as they love; if
they are equally lovable their claim can perhaps be justified, but when
they have nothing lovable about them it is ridiculous. Perhaps, however,
contrary does not even aim at contrary by its own nature, but only
incidentally, the desire being for what is intermediate; for that is
what is good, e.g. it is good for the dry not to become wet but to come
to the intermediate state, and similarly with the hot and in all other
cases. These subjects we may dismiss; for they are indeed somewhat
foreign to our inquiry.
9
Friendship and justice seem, as we have said at the outset of our
discussion, to be concerned with the same objects and exhibited between
the same persons. For in every community there is thought to be some
form of justice, and friendship too; at least men address as friends
their fellow-voyagers and fellow-soldiers, and so too those associated
with them in any other kind of community. And the extent of their
association is the extent of their friendship, as it is the extent to
which justice exists between them. And the proverb 'what friends have is
common property' expresses the truth; for friendship depends on
community. Now brothers and comrades have all things in common, but the
others to whom we have referred have definite things in common-some more
things, others fewer; for of friendships, too, some are more and others
less truly friendships. And the claims of justice differ too; the duties
of parents to children, and those of brothers to each other are not the
same, nor those of comrades and those of fellow-citizens, and so, too,
with the other kinds of friendship. There is a difference, therefore,
also between the acts that are unjust towards each of these classes of
associates, and the injustice increases by being exhibited towards those
who are friends in a fuller sense; e.g. it is a more terrible thing to
defraud a comrade than a fellow-citizen, more terrible not to help a
brother than a stranger, and more terrible to wound a father than any
one else. And the demands of justice also seem to increase with the
intensity of the friendship, which implies that friendship and justice
exist between the same persons and have an equal extension.
Now all forms of community are like parts of the political community;
for men journey together with a view to some particular advantage, and
to provide something that they need for the purposes of life; and it is
for the sake of advantage that the political community too seems both to
have come together originally and to endure, for this is what
legislators aim at, and they call just that which is to the common
advantage. Now the other communities aim at advantage bit by bit, e.g.
sailors at what is advantageous on a voyage with a view to making money
or something of the kind, fellow-soldiers at what is advantageous in
war, whether it is wealth or victory or the taking of a city that they
seek, and members of tribes and demes act similarly (Some communities
seem to arise for the sake or pleasure, viz. religious guilds and social
clubs; for these exist respectively for the sake of offering sacrifice
and of companionship. But all these seem to fall under the political
community; for it aims not at present advantage but at what is
advantageous for life as a whole), offering sacrifices and arranging
gatherings for the purpose, and assigning honours to the gods, and
providing pleasant relaxations for themselves. For the ancient
sacrifices and gatherings seem to take place after the harvest as a sort
of first-fruits, because it was at these seasons that people had most
leisure. All the communities, then, seem to be parts of the political
community; and the particular kinds friendship will correspond to the
particular kinds of community.
10
There are three kinds of constitution, and an equal number of
deviation-forms--perversions, as it were, of them. The constitutions are
monarchy, aristocracy, and thirdly that which is based on a property
qualification, which it seems appropriate to call timocratic, though
most people are wont to call it polity. The best of these is monarchy,
the worst timocracy. The deviation from monarchy is tyranny; for both
are forms of one-man rule, but there is the greatest difference between
them; the tyrant looks to his own advantage, the king to that of his
subjects. For a man is not a king unless he is sufficient to himself and
excels his subjects in all good things; and such a man needs nothing
further; therefore he will not look to his own interests but to those of
his subjects; for a king who is not like that would be a mere titular
king. Now tyranny is the very contrary of this; the tyrant pursues his
own good. And it is clearer in the case of tyranny that it is the worst
deviation-form; but it is the contrary of the best that is worst.
Monarchy passes over into tyranny; for tyranny is the evil form of
one-man rule and the bad king becomes a tyrant. Aristocracy passes over
into oligarchy by the badness of the rulers, who distribute contrary to
equity what belongs to the city-all or most of the good things to
themselves, and office always to the same people, paying most regard to
wealth; thus the rulers are few and are bad men instead of the most
worthy. Timocracy passes over into democracy; for these are coterminous,
since it is the ideal even of timocracy to be the rule of the majority,
and all who have the property qualification count as equal. Democracy is
the least bad of the deviations; for in its case the form of
constitution is but a slight deviation. These then are the changes to
which constitutions are most subject; for these are the smallest and
easiest transitions.
One may find resemblances to the constitutions and, as it were, patterns
of them even in households. For the association of a father with his
sons bears the form of monarchy, since the father cares for his
children; and this is why Homer calls Zeus 'father'; it is the ideal of
monarchy to be paternal rule. But among the Persians the rule of the
father is tyrannical; they use their sons as slaves. Tyrannical too is
the rule of a master over slaves; for it is the advantage of the master
that is brought about in it. Now this seems to be a correct form of
government, but the Persian type is perverted; for the modes of rule
appropriate to different relations are diverse. The association of man
and wife seems to be aristocratic; for the man rules in accordance with
his worth, and in those matters in which a man should rule, but the
matters that befit a woman he hands over to her. If the man rules in
everything the relation passes over into oligarchy; for in doing so he
is not acting in accordance with their respective worth, and not ruling
in virtue of his superiority. Sometimes, however, women rule, because
they are heiresses; so their rule is not in virtue of excellence but due
to wealth and power, as in oligarchies. The association of brothers is
like timocracy; for they are equal, except in so far as they differ in
age; hence if they differ much in age, the friendship is no longer of
the fraternal type. Democracy is found chiefly in masterless dwellings
(for here every one is on an equality), and in those in which the ruler
is weak and every one has licence to do as he pleases.
11
Each of the constitutions may be seen to involve friendship just in so
far as it involves justice. The friendship between a king and his
subjects depends on an excess of benefits conferred; for he confers
benefits on his subjects if being a good man he cares for them with a
view to their well-being, as a shepherd does for his sheep (whence Homer
called Agamemnon 'shepherd of the peoples'). Such too is the friendship
of a father, though this exceeds the other in the greatness of the
benefits conferred; for he is responsible for the existence of his
children, which is thought the greatest good, and for their nurture and
upbringing.
These things are ascribed to ancestors as well. Further, by nature a
father tends to rule over his sons, ancestors over descendants, a king
over his subjects. These friendships imply superiority of one party over
the other, which is why ancestors are honoured. The justice therefore
that exists between persons so related is not the same on both sides but
is in every case proportioned to merit; for that is true of the
friendship as well. The friendship of man and wife, again, is the same
that is found in an aristocracy; for it is in accordance with virtue the
better gets more of what is good, and each gets what befits him; and so,
too, with the justice in these relations. The friendship of brothers is
like that of comrades; for they are equal and of like age, and such
persons are for the most part like in their feelings and their
character. Like this, too, is the friendship appropriate to timocratic
government; for in such a constitution the ideal is for the citizens to
be equal and fair; therefore rule is taken in turn, and on equal terms;
and the friendship appropriate here will correspond.
But in the deviation-forms, as justice hardly exists, so too does
friendship. It exists least in the worst form; in tyranny there is
little or no friendship. For where there is nothing common to ruler and
ruled, there is not friendship either, since there is not justice; e.g.
between craftsman and tool, soul and body, master and slave; the latter
in each case is benefited by that which uses it, but there is no
friendship nor justice towards lifeless things. But neither is there
friendship towards a horse or an ox, nor to a slave qua slave. For there
is nothing common to the two parties; the slave is a living tool and the
tool a lifeless slave. Qua slave then, one cannot be friends with him.
But qua man one can; for there seems to be some justice between any man
and any other who can share in a system of law or be a party to an
agreement; therefore there can also be friendship with him in so far as
he is a man. Therefore while in tyrannies friendship and justice hardly
exist, in democracies they exist more fully; for where the citizens are
equal they have much in common.
12
Every form of friendship, then, involves association, as has been said.
One might, however, mark off from the rest both the friendship of
kindred and that of comrades. Those of fellow-citizens,
fellow-tribesmen, fellow-voyagers, and the like are more like mere
friendships of association; for they seem to rest on a sort of compact.
With them we might class the friendship of host and guest. The
friendship of kinsmen itself, while it seems to be of many kinds,
appears to depend in every case on parental friendship; for parents love
their children as being a part of themselves, and children their parents
as being something originating from them. Now (1) parents know their
offspring better than there children know that they are their children,
and (2) the originator feels his offspring to be his own more than the
offspring do their begetter; for the product belongs to the producer
(e.g. a tooth or hair or anything else to him whose it is), but the
producer does not belong to the product, or belongs in a less degree.
And (3) the length of time produces the same result; parents love their
children as soon as these are born, but children love their parents only
after time has elapsed and they have acquired understanding or the power
of discrimination by the senses. From these considerations it is also
plain why mothers love more than fathers do. Parents, then, love their
children as themselves (for their issue are by virtue of their separate
existence a sort of other selves), while children love their parents as
being born of them, and brothers love each other as being born of the
same parents; for their identity with them makes them identical with
each other (which is the reason why people talk of 'the same blood',
'the same stock', and so on). They are, therefore, in a sense the same
thing, though in separate individuals. Two things that contribute
greatly to friendship are a common upbringing and similarity of age; for
'two of an age take to each other', and people brought up together tend
to be comrades; whence the friendship of brothers is akin to that of
comrades. And cousins and other kinsmen are bound up together by
derivation from brothers, viz. by being derived from the same parents.
They come to be closer together or farther apart by virtue of the
nearness or distance of the original ancestor.
The friendship of children to parents, and of men to gods, is a relation
to them as to something good and superior; for they have conferred the
greatest benefits, since they are the causes of their being and of their
nourishment, and of their education from their birth; and this kind of
friendship possesses pleasantness and utility also, more than that of
strangers, inasmuch as their life is lived more in common. The
friendship of brothers has the characteristics found in that of comrades
(and especially when these are good), and in general between people who
are like each other, inasmuch as they belong more to each other and
start with a love for each other from their very birth, and inasmuch as
those born of the same parents and brought up together and similarly
educated are more akin in character; and the test of time has been
applied most fully and convincingly in their case.
Between other kinsmen friendly relations are found in due proportion.
Between man and wife friendship seems to exist by nature; for man is
naturally inclined to form couples-even more than to form cities,
inasmuch as the household is earlier and more necessary than the city,
and reproduction is more common to man with the animals. With the other
animals the union extends only to this point, but human beings live
together not only for the sake of reproduction but also for the various
purposes of life; for from the start the functions are divided, and
those of man and woman are different; so they help each other by
throwing their peculiar gifts into the common stock. It is for these
reasons that both utility and pleasure seem to be found in this kind of
friendship. But this friendship may be based also on virtue, if the
parties are good; for each has its own virtue and they will delight in
the fact. And children seem to be a bond of union (which is the reason
why childless people part more easily); for children are a good common
to both and what is common holds them together.
How man and wife and in general friend and friend ought mutually to
behave seems to be the same question as how it is just for them to
behave; for a man does not seem to have the same duties to a friend, a
stranger, a comrade, and a schoolfellow.
13
There are three kinds of friendship, as we said at the outset of our
inquiry, and in respect of each some are friends on an equality and
others by virtue of a superiority (for not only can equally good men
become friends but a better man can make friends with a worse, and
similarly in friendships of pleasure or utility the friends may be equal
or unequal in the benefits they confer). This being so, equals must
effect the required equalization on a basis of equality in love and in
all other respects, while unequals must render what is in proportion to
their superiority or inferiority. Complaints and reproaches arise either
only or chiefly in the friendship of utility, and this is only to be
expected. For those who are friends on the ground of virtue are anxious
to do well by each other (since that is a mark of virtue and of
friendship), and between men who are emulating each other in this there
cannot be complaints or quarrels; no one is offended by a man who loves
him and does well by him-if he is a person of nice feeling he takes his
revenge by doing well by the other. And the man who excels the other in
the services he renders will not complain of his friend, since he gets
what he aims at; for each man desires what is good. Nor do complaints
arise much even in friendships of pleasure; for both get at the same
time what they desire, if they enjoy spending their time together; and
even a man who complained of another for not affording him pleasure
would seem ridiculous, since it is in his power not to spend his days
with him.
But the friendship of utility is full of complaints; for as they use
each other for their own interests they always want to get the better of
the bargain, and think they have got less than they should, and blame
their partners because they do not get all they 'want and deserve'; and
those who do well by others cannot help them as much as those whom they
benefit want.
Now it seems that, as justice is of two kinds, one unwritten and the
other legal, one kind of friendship of utility is moral and the other
legal. And so complaints arise most of all when men do not dissolve the
relation in the spirit of the same type of friendship in which they
contracted it. The legal type is that which is on fixed terms; its
purely commercial variety is on the basis of immediate payment, while
the more liberal variety allows time but stipulates for a definite quid
pro quo. In this variety the debt is clear and not ambiguous, but in the
postponement it contains an element of friendliness; and so some states
do not allow suits arising out of such agreements, but think men who
have bargained on a basis of credit ought to accept the consequences.
The moral type is not on fixed terms; it makes a gift, or does whatever
it does, as to a friend; but one expects to receive as much or more, as
having not given but lent; and if a man is worse off when the relation
is dissolved than he was when it was contracted he will complain. This
happens because all or most men, while they wish for what is noble,
choose what is advantageous; now it is noble to do well by another
without a view to repayment, but it is the receiving of benefits that is
advantageous. Therefore if we can we should return the equivalent of
what we have received (for we must not make a man our friend against his
will; we must recognize that we were mistaken at the first and took a
benefit from a person we should not have taken it from-since it was not
from a friend, nor from one who did it just for the sake of acting
so-and we must settle up just as if we had been benefited on fixed
terms). Indeed, one would agree to repay if one could (if one could not,
even the giver would not have expected one to do so); therefore if it is
possible we must repay. But at the outset we must consider the man by
whom we are being benefited and on what terms he is acting, in order
that we may accept the benefit on these terms, or else decline it.
It is disputable whether we ought to measure a service by its utility to
the receiver and make the return with a view to that, or by the
benevolence of the giver. For those who have received say they have
received from their benefactors what meant little to the latter and what
they might have got from others-minimizing the service; while the
givers, on the contrary, say it was the biggest thing they had, and what
could not have been got from others, and that it was given in times of
danger or similar need. Now if the friendship is one that aims at
utility, surely the advantage to the receiver is the measure. For it is
he that asks for the service, and the other man helps him on the
assumption that he will receive the equivalent; so the assistance has
been precisely as great as the advantage to the receiver, and therefore
he must return as much as he has received, or even more (for that would
be nobler). In friendships based on virtue on the other hand, complaints
do not arise, but the purpose of the doer is a sort of measure; for in
purpose lies the essential element of virtue and character.
14
Differences arise also in friendships based on superiority; for each
expects to get more out of them, but when this happens the friendship is
dissolved. Not only does the better man think he ought to get more,
since more should be assigned to a good man, but the more useful
similarly expects this; they say a useless man should not get as much as
they should, since it becomes an act of public service and not a
friendship if the proceeds of the friendship do not answer to the worth
of the benefits conferred. For they think that, as in a commercial
partnership those who put more in get more out, so it should be in
friendship. But the man who is in a state of need and inferiority makes
the opposite claim; they think it is the part of a good friend to help
those who are in need; what, they say, is the use of being the friend of
a good man or a powerful man, if one is to get nothing out of it?
At all events it seems that each party is justified in his claim, and
that each should get more out of the friendship than the other-not more
of the same thing, however, but the superior more honour and the
inferior more gain; for honour is the prize of virtue and of
beneficence, while gain is the assistance required by inferiority.
It seems to be so in constitutional arrangements also; the man who
contributes nothing good to the common stock is not honoured; for what
belongs to the public is given to the man who benefits the public, and
honour does belong to the public. It is not possible to get wealth from
the common stock and at the same time honour. For no one puts up with
the smaller share in all things; therefore to the man who loses in
wealth they assign honour and to the man who is willing to be paid,
wealth, since the proportion to merit equalizes the parties and
preserves the friendship, as we have said. This then is also the way in
which we should associate with unequals; the man who is benefited in
respect of wealth or virtue must give honour in return, repaying what he
can. For friendship asks a man to do what he can, not what is
proportional to the merits of the case; since that cannot always be
done, e.g. in honours paid to the gods or to parents; for no one could
ever return to them the equivalent of what he gets, but the man who
serves them to the utmost of his power is thought to be a good man. This
is why it would not seem open to a man to disown his father (though a
father may disown his son); being in debt, he should repay, but there is
nothing by doing which a son will have done the equivalent of what he
has received, so that he is always in debt. But creditors can remit a
debt; and a father can therefore do so too. At the same time it is
thought that presumably no one would repudiate a son who was not far
gone in wickedness; for apart from the natural friendship of father and
son it is human nature not to reject a son's assistance. But the son, if
he is wicked, will naturally avoid aiding his father, or not be zealous
about it; for most people wish to get benefits, but avoid doing them, as
a thing unprofitable.-So much for these questions.
Go to Next Page
|